The debate "If you hunt with any form of automatic weapon you are not a sportsman" was started by
April 18, 2018, 9:28 am.
26 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 18 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 15 arguments, MrShine posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
MrShine posted 6 arguments, Matthew354 posted 5 arguments to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff, devindel, LiberalsAversion, chickboy1776, RealCaffNasty and 21 visitors agree.
MrShine, Matthew354, ankit99s, Gorgon, Aiyaz, Cisco, Craven198787 and 11 visitors disagree.
Because the honor of a gladeator fight is lost on me, this is a separate bit that restates and reiterates some things. I understand the last but was long, so maybe these important differences are shorter, maybe an important distinction before getting back to parts of hunting.
It appears that the argument for sport uses the argument for hunting, because the action required overlaps. If we limit what portion for the sport is cowardly, then redefine the sport by a portion because it isn't any less cowardly, I suppose under enough conditions most sports can appear to be cowardly, as neglectful as that might be. How many fighting sports ban moves that a healthy human might use, and aren't they allowed in others?
However when considering where hunting is, it certainly isn't a firing line, and certainly not rigging. With sport you can't pretend, either you did it or you didn't, and the same can be said of prey. I suppose it's different from rodeos this way or bullfights, as if the rider did something in front of a crowd or actually persuaded a healthy beast to run in circles. Do that in the wild, guess who dies.
These are specific examples, because these are the unarmored, skillful fights that are most common, and the rig is more than a hypothetical with exaggerated ease. The hypotheticals are certainty with rules, and with factors that will always favor the sportsman. It might be hard to ride a rodeo bull, but does the rider start with his hands on a possibly tired, domestic bull? In front of a crowd? For who?
Except the sport aspects do not conflate with survival. Instead it should be recognized there will be overlap. An animal that is prey will act like prey, and to act as a predator instead of a "warrior" is the expectation because there is no other way the animal will act. And some animals do actually hunt for sport, they just aren't wasteful. Prey acts as prey.
Unless you force it. You may condemn the owner and the crowd of a ring animal, but why draw the line there? Humans are not capable of standing on equal footing as bulls, and bullrides even underline the element of "playing" with the animal rather than respecting it for their own fame. Who's arena are humans ultimately fighting in? Heck, they can lay down human restrictions for themselves because they will not need all their tools to win.
Again, you also say no skill, how do you know this? I would assume even the most basic of talents require skill, and the conversations seems to switch between no skill or baby-tier requirements, without any real backup. No skill would be an indicator of rigging, sure, but let's be honest here and make a connection, not potshots.
Humans are not totally safe during hunts, I won't conflate the tracking or dangers or getting lost, or even confrontation, but wouldn't firing a shot reveal your location? Even videogames know this.
The "victim" is not irrelevant, the victim was born prey to people, the same way grass is prey to herbivores. While this may seem to simplify and ask little thought, this is actually profound. Prey are killed, indifference is the factor, not torture.
Malevolence is cowardice, the kind that lets the prey know you did it, because it is important to you. To glean honor from it is ridiculous.
Pretending something got away is pretending to try. And narrowing the subject to 'the joy of killing ' reveals some biases. Would a mele fight to the death, tooth and claw, gasping and struggling be much more merciful? I won't say an arena fighter is any bless skilled, probably with a variety with more skills honestly, but I can't grant them as the more merciful. I think the irrational infection of pain is far more crazy, like the difference between killing a fly or pulling off it's wings. I'm sure the fly that never knew is better off than the one that suffered.
some nuance about the melee. If your in head to toe full armor, your still a coward. and if your using a limited gun, like a civil war musket with no accuracy or range, you may not be a coward, idk the details.
but if your using an automatic, you are not a sportsman and a coward. if your doing long range sniping, you may be a sportsman, but your still a coward.
what is the difference between long range hunting of unsuspecting prey, and just shooting at a target and pretending it got away if you miss? besides the joy of watching something die because of you?
90% of this thread is still confusing sport and survival.
predators are not hunting for sport. they are hunting to eat. nature doesn't play sport.
the life of an arena animal is not the issue. the owner and the fans should probably be shamed. but the human opponent staring it down, 1 on 1, melee on melee, that person got balls, and hopefully a decent amount of skill, unlike firearm hunters.
I don't know how you would hunt a coyote. if hes pestering your flock, kill it with whatever you want. but if your taking something's life for sport from a position of total safety, your a coward. no amount of tracking will change that. and if your engagement required no skill, tracking is the only thing you have bragging rights to.
the situation, the victim are irrelevant. if you rig a bloodsport where you face no danger from your opponent, you are coward.
and if its not for sport then this thread does not apply. so please stop making nonsport related analogies. they are irrelevant to this.
Nature is very one sided, so are most fights outside of typical sports events (some recent ones aren't close though). Honor is a discipline system and honor code for building character, and a trading system for others. Posturing over the honor of killing is one thing, it isn't a promise of torture either. Since we are deciding to limit this to sport not food or necessity, I must at least point out that killing and honor are not exclusives and that the kind of respect that one gives for "power" is not the same as "skill".
The animal is not supposed to suspect, that is part of being a 'hunter'. Predators in the wild are hidden for just long enough to get what they need, even if they can't do it in full secrecy. Do the same camoflauges that hide prey make them cowardly either? They will want to survive, but predators want to kill, simple as that.
But somehow, arena fighting an animal is fair. Where will it run off to? It won't, it will be put down or placed in fight after fight until the "mighty" get their kill. These aren't conditions where an animals strengths are at it's best, and it is a human enviornment. A deer in the wild might escape once and never see man again, there is a reward for the animal to win, even if it didn't chose to be born prey.
It is possible to lose, and bravery suggests that the sport has something to fear. There's plenty of ways to die in the woods without animal contact, and bears exist, but we're restricting (oddly enough) again to the human takedown... but when focusing on part of the sport, it's only an image. It's like saying a boxer punches people but neglects that they actually get hit too.
So suppose a person is hunting a coyote, should they feel fear for it to be a sport? Do they show up with a gun, show it off, then fight without firing a shot? It really starts sounding like an odd power fantasy outside of it's element, not like the power and skill struggle it takes to take the shot. It is necessary, almost ritual to use the advantages given to people, and then go somewhere that favors the animal for a self improving hunt.
And there are advantages given to animals.I want to know why you think it's so easy to actually hit the damn thing. I'm not saying that a person with a gun needs to be reckless and hunters aren't idiots. But it is clear that a "win some, lose some" case is closer to the truth than "Enough shots hit".
"how does a person rig a game against an animal? Does an animal have a sense of honor?"
it doesn't matter who your opponent is. and it's not a question of the honor of the victim. the animal isnt doing this for sport.
I dont understand this defense at all.
taking an unsuspecting melee opponent out from a distance for sport is cowardly. it doesn't matter the technique or opponent.
putting it in an arena where it cant escape but is perfectly fine fighting is not the same as restraining its limbs. if the form of ancient Rome or modern bullfights, neither fighter can escape, and both are melee. the bullfighter has assistants to help, but nowhere near the cowardly hiding or spraying of firearm hunters. unless the firearm is severely limited, exceptions for everything.
trapping can be a catch and release for the show of skill is done. killing the trapped monster wont earn you badass points. I have no claims against the skill of tracking, but let's be real, there isnt any bravery in that. I'm talking about the takedown. it's a grossly 1 sided bloodsport, do you consider that brave?
Good words Nemiroff, maybe your ungodliness is starting to fade. None of the weapons are cowardly. The coward is the one who is 6 foot 7, weighs 260 but only willing to fight an opponent 5 foot 4 weighing 130 pounds bare knuckles. That coward would run from a gunfight against the same opponent, because cowards only want to fight while facing 0 danger from the opponent. That's why they get jobs as false god police. They are able to ratpack attack random people by getting a job as ICE and provided with superior weaponry, vehicles, and manpower in order to engage and attack weaklings who can barely speak English.
Rig, how does a person rig a game against an animal? Does an animal have a sense of honor? Do they always have a chance of combat? I can't see anything short of making an arena and forcing it to stay and fight, if it is not suited to. If it is, a pre ordained restraint would also be rigging. But hunting is the word it sounds like because finding, hiding, and killing are the goals. Guns or bows do not violate this, even in a "cowardly" distance. By these measures, it seems trapping not hunting is cowardly unless it is for food. The animal stumbles right across a skilled trap, an literally no aim is required. It's a different category, really, and maybe noticing some differences hunting can seem more sporting.
Basically, it seems the stance appears to be "if you can shoot it, bow, arrow, anything but hands or handweapon you are a coward."
It's fair to say hunting is a cowardly sport, but maybe start with this rather than suggest a weapon is cowardly, because the breadth of revised weapon statements made seems to cover everything past the original comment, putting hunting into a different sport's rules.
Also, consider the possibility for another hunter to use those same tools, what principle actually restricts it? Nothing that can be ignored without placing artificial boundaries. To go off of the cotton machine analogy, what good is limiting yourself if it isn't to become efficient? The hunt ends with less money spent, and distance training occurs, again, it is easy to miss. So Efficiency is not the end all definition of 'rigging', but I would assume it is at least fair to say the chances of "losing" goes down. Plenty of legal tools can be employed in sports in a similar way, it's not always a cure all steroid or shoes or deflated ball rigging.
It all comes down to experience when considering the following; is it rigging if there is little or no chance of losing? Yes. But do these guns minimize the loss to enough of a degree to lose? Certainly not. People die, get lost, lose their prey, plenty of factors can exist and create a Loss without guns. If it is a sport as a whole, why limit the statement to the actual killing portion? That doesn't decide enough to rig, and actually hitting the target isn't as easy as pulling the trigger. It takes experience and inexperienced losses in my opinion confirm no rigging.
if you rig a bloodsport where you face no danger from your opponent, you are coward.
key word, sport.
not war, not self defense, not survival.
soldiers are not doing it for sport
"the full auto is less cowardly (by an insignificant degree) but still near zero danger"
This is still horribly illogical, is the next following logic "soldiers are cowards for using full auto assault rifles in the battlefield, instead of melee weapons" true as well? Or perhaps the US military are too much of cowards not to fight face to face with drones killing from a huge distance with missiles?
An advanced tool in tech being used is not cheating any more than a cotton gin used to separate cotton more than hands than rivaling cotton industries, a machine gun makes a sportsman more efficient.
no, you're link was not addressed, I completely missed it and that entire post, but I guess that happens when we have 10 simultaneous threads on the same issue.
the cheat argument was addressed by me:
"yes hacking to make yourself intangible is much more unbalanced, I would say that is similar to grenade fishing. but one can also hack to give themselves an unfair weapon advantage such as unlimited ammo or 1 hit kills. sure automatics have limited ammo and take more than 1 shot, but your targets are melee only. whether that's easy mode or straight up cheating is debatable, but they are objectively not sportsmen."
but I would like to revise me position, farther away from you both.
single shot long distance is a sportsman move, but it still makes you a coward. it requires skill, but if you want to rig a blood sport so that your completely safe while killing your opponent, your a coward no matter how much skill you display in your aiming.
the full auto is less cowardly (by an insignificant degree) but still near zero danger, and almost devoid of skill. the recoil is a factor if you've never handled the gun before, but unless you have little child muscles you'll adapt enough within 2 minutes of your first usage.
and I didn't say spray, I said point and hold. you just need to keep it semi steady and it will hit the target and everything around it. stay and spray would be a sweeping motion that would be retarded against 1 target. let's call it, hold and sway in a small radius around the 1 target. cant miss.
? Sportsmanship is not an objective term, skill is objective because there can be measurable levels but sportsman is merely "codes of conduct" whether it is for self improvement or self-based constraints, or even social contraints if it is a group hunt. Melee only targets suggests all guns and bows are not sportsmanship either, so I would suggest redefining if this is not the case. Discipline would be better to consider.
I don't feel like the article linked was read, or that a hunters opinion was regarded. There are some situations where a non-automatic, semi or fully, is insufficient in hunting. Unfortunately that is a fact, not everyone can be Chris Kyle American Sniper, and because someone can do it doesn't mean the average sportsman can or should be able to.I'm sure everyone at one point in their life and subject wants to be the best, but how realistic is it to always place a limit, especially in near impossible situations.
It could be argued that it is easy mode semi or fully, but certainly not cheating. Reframing the range of semi automatic benefits to skill would not yield any range below "easy" because it is just as easy to miss for reasons stated below or linked in the article. In other words, the minute a hunter no longer focuses or considers it a hunt, there is no target.
The logistics of spray and pray might only work hunting a pack, because of how crowded together a pack might be. Spray and pray on a single target is completely possible, but focus will make the experience much more rewarding, with new aiming details learned, conserving ammo for the same hunting ground, and allowing for future hunting experiences to be more effective. I think a sportsman would care about these things, even if a delusional power tripping hunter thought he was cheating he would probably improve on these principles alone.
Improvement means the ability would not rely on it heavily, but be supplimented by the ability to do so. Discipline, you know?
the hacking comparison was about there being different skill sets. tracking is skillful much like hacking, but that isnt the skill being discussed. the engagement with the target is the issue.
the misunderstanding aside, yes hacking to make yourself intangible is much more unbalanced, I would say that is similar to grenade fishing. but one can also hack to give themselves an unfair weapon advantage such as unlimited ammo or 1 hit kills. sure automatics have limited ammo and take more than 1 shot, but your targets are melee only. whether that's easy mode or straight up cheating is debatable, but they are objectively not sportsmen.
"certainly skills like tracking are still relevant but as I already demonstrated earlier, hacking into COD and making yourself unhittable does indeed make you an excellent and skilled hacker"
That is not easy mode, hacking into a game is cheating. At least easy mode has a form of challenge, cheating does not. Would you really think hunting your game is really that easy with a machine gun compared to a single shot rifle? No! Especially if you can't control the recoil to actually hit something, particularly in full auto. You apparently know more things about video games more than handling a firearm and hunting.
if you fail on easy mode you should reevaluate your life.
certainly skills like tracking are still relevant but as I already demonstrated earlier, hacking into COD and making yourself unhittable does indeed make you an excellent and skilled hacker, but your still a loser at first person shooters.
Plenty of people fail with semi-auto and full auto firearms for hunting, what poor sportsmanship entails is not bringing in game for weeks despite being in the hunting ground consistently and only blames his tools for his failure.
as me and mr.shine agreed, skill is not all or nothing. a bow will be far more skillful then a long range single shot, a knife or bare handed would be really impressive. a rifle will is pretty meh depending on what rifle and what target, but an automatic is just disgraceful imho.
it doesn't involve danger, but it does involve very careful aim, and lose if you miss 1, maybe 2 since the fire rate, and reaiming take time. if you miss the first, your probably lost.
I said skill, not threat level. machine gun hunting has no skill or threat. it's a step above grenade fishing.
Does that mean if a long range bolt action rifle can take out dangerous game from a much safer distance than a semi auto rifle like an AR15 consider it easy mode too? What you define as sportsmanship is too arbitrary.
if there's no skill, there's no sport. playing on easy mode doesn't make a person a sportsman, it makes that person a loser.
A good sportsman uses anything in his disposal to bring in game, it doesn't matter if the firearm bolt action, semi auto, or full auto.
your using spray and pray as in the fire into a crowd while sweeping the gun wildly. with a single target, and the muscle strength of a grown person, you can easily point it in the general direction and hit a majority of bullets, unless your aiming for rabbits or something small.
I would have to disagree on "spray n pray" being a useful mechanic. I know it isn't the terminology you used, but generally that is the nickname for firing rapidly with little aim. If bullets go quick, and the aim is off target, the second or third bullet isn't going to be too far from the miss. If it is so radically quick (which appears to be the emphasis), then reloading becomes necessary.
If the aim goes anywhere and everywhere, it's offset by the distance to the target. If a plane traveling from one city 200 miles out is off by one degree, they become lost, it's a popular example with the same principle. Correct too late, and it's a waste, overcorrect (fun term, but it doesn't make accuracy autoaim) and the shots are lost.
The rate of fire sounds like a cheat outside of the context of actually hitting, and a thousand shots eventually hit that is true. But it's also isn't faster than too many others, 45 rounds a minute, possible with a handgun or any other semi automatic that has enough ammo. It is very possible to miss, games make it harder to miss whether or not there is a hack. But you don't have to take my word for it, this link is the first to come up in a Google search, hunters opinions from time magazine.
trophy hunting, or hunting for fun without bringing back the head, same thing. i dont want to narrow it too much so let's just say not for survival, and not for a professional marksman competition.
if your killing to eat, none of this applies. certainly competitions need rules but I was referring to the less formal, and definitely not for survival: trophy hunting.
yes tracking takes skill, but that is completely different from the actually engagement. a bow would be commendable, going at it melee gladiator style would be crazy, but one heck of an achievement. it can be argued that even single shot rifles are a cheat, but rapid fire is even more so pathetic. with a sniper you must at least aim, no matter how safe your position is. with rapid fire, just hold and spray, you'll fill it full of holes eventually. no aim needed.
so you are right, there is a range of skill values, but rapid fire is absolutely beyond belief pathetic (for trophy bragging). it's like someone bragging about a perfect record on CoD cause they hacked the server and made their bodies intangible. there is no achievement, not even a mediocre one. (except for the tracking/hacking, but that's a separate skill set, props on those. but being a good hacker doesn't make you a good first person shooter, which is the sought after achievement in the example)
So semi or fully automatic guns are good for hunting so long as it's to feed yourself? I suppose in competition there could be limitations, and by personal preference that could be said. Implementation on the other hand could not be compulsory, if they can hunt the purpose of the hunt can be eating or for sport, the limitations are self imposed.
As for merit, I couldn't force my values onto someone else, but I could suggest that hitting an animal is half the task, getting to the animal without it running is half or more. For a balance of fire and distance, a rifle is effective but it doesn't enhance what doesn't exist: skill.
A sniper rifle can do massive damage at a distance and a shotgun scatters (albeit short range and usually exaggerated in real life). Each has its own benefits, and it could be argued a rifle shot is unfair because approaching the animal is removed or bird hunting with less accuracy needed. Bait is used to bring the animal to a spot, what skill is used for getting the animal to you? At some point, it could be argued hunters should bows. I would assume bows would be considered skill enough, but it's definitely a value measurement.
yes, I foresaw this dilemma. which is why I said any form of automatic. if you can unload a clip within seconds, whether its 1 pull or repeated pulls, your not a sportsman.
if your hunting to feed yourself in a survival situation, by all means. but if your just going trophy hunting, you do not deserve that trophy or any sense of accomplishment. there's a reason using cheat codes in video games doesn't unlock any achievements. because you didn't achieve anything.
Automatic, how? What definition would we use to define if a weapon is automatic? Of course a definition does exist, yes, but it doesn't mean we are speaking about the same idea. Semi automatic? Fully automatic? A personal definition is needed so we don't move around on possible opinions or stray too far from what's "unsportsmanlike".